Should the Judiciary Hearing Be Scrapped & Just A Confirmation Vote Be Held?

[Slade3200]

you're not paying attention. I’m not talking about Trump nominating somebody now. I’ve said over and over that he has that right. The game was what happened to Garland and the new precedent that Reps tried to set about nominating justices during an election year.... and then completely flip flopping on it during the next term. Obama should have gotten Garland and Trump should get this pick. We all know this

Yeah, I am trying to ignore your ignorance for the most part.

1. Garland is in the past...let it go.

2. What 'precedence' regarding nominating Judges in an election year' did the GOP set?

At least 14 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed during election years

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...

www.vox.com

3. Yes, Garland should have gotten his hearings. Sadly, he didn't. Welcome to POLITICS.

And 'for the record, we both know if GBG would have bailed in September 2016 Barry and the Democrats would have broken their collective asses trying to fill the vacancy. Barry even said if one came available that he year he would have.

It’s not that complicated. Each president has the right to nominate a Justice. They should act like grown ups. Get in a room with the congressional leaders and discuss options. Congress advises, the president nominates, the senate consents. Grow the fuck up. Obama had that right and the GOP took it away. Trump has that right. Clear example how these political games are fucking up our country

 

[easyt65]

you're not paying attention. I’m not talking about Trump nominating somebody now. I’ve said over and over that he has that right. The game was what happened to Garland and the new precedent that Reps tried to set about nominating justices during an election year.... and then completely flip flopping on it during the next term. Obama should have gotten Garland and Trump should get this pick. We all know this

Yeah, I am trying to ignore your ignorance for the most part.

1. Garland is in the past...let it go.

2. What 'precedence' regarding nominating Judges in an election year' did the GOP set?

At least 14 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed during election years

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...

www.vox.com

3. Yes, Garland should have gotten his hearings. Sadly, he didn't. Welcome to POLITICS.

And 'for the record, we both know if GBG would have bailed in September 2016 Barry and the Democrats would have broken their collective asses trying to fill the vacancy. Barry even said if one came available that he year he would have.

Ho hum let it go doesn’t fly when you’re talking about robbing a president of his constitutional right to Appoint a Supreme Court justice. The reasoning they used and the precedent they set was that a judge should not be appointed in an election year. The people should decide through their vote. Since that was a lie. The precedent now set is if the opposition party is in power they should block a presidents SCOTUS pick. What would stop them from blocking it for 2 years next time?

What would stop Democrats from doing the same in the future. What Feinstein and the Democrats did to Kavanaugh was f*ing despicable - immoral, unethical, down-right POS low! So don't talk to me about piss-poor behavior by the GOP. What they did to him and said about him in front of his wife and kids was damn-near unforgiveable. NO EXCUSE.

Like him or not, Lindsey Graham was spot-on on his rebuke of the Democrats.

 

[easyt65]

It’s not that complicated. Each president has the right to nominate a Justice. They should act like grown ups.

Did the Democrats act like 'grown-ups' during the Kavanaugh hearings?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just as it is within the power of the president to appoint a judge, it is totally within the power of the senate to refuse to confirm them.

That might be the dumbest f*ing thing I hear all day, even dumber than what Slade keeps repeating. Now why in the hell would the GOP want to throw the Democrats - who illegally spied on everyone, conducted a failed political coup attempt, who continued to conduct failed coup attempts, who savagely and immorally put Kavanaugh through hell - a bone and refuse to fill the vacancy?!


Bwuhahahahaha.....

You might want to read that again, it says EXACTLY the opposite of what you think it says.

You are correct, and I apologize. McConnell had an obligation to bring Garland up for hearings. His decision not to falls more under 'Elections have consequences...but who has the votes rule.' The Democrats were kind enough to do away with the filibuster and institute the 'nuclear option, one decision I am sure they now regret.

Judges like Garland and Kavanaugh are unfortunately used and abused - victims of partisan politics.Garland, however, was spared the immoral 'politics of destruction' Kavanaugh was forced to endure.

I disagree. I don't think he had any obligation whatsoever to hold hearings. It wasn't going to happen, and it's not like the Senate has nothing else they need to be doing.

Obligation or not, the republicans would be in a far stronger political position today had they actually held the hearing and downvoted Garland.

The dems would not have such an easy time spinning it as deceitful or have reams of videos playing republicans claiming that they would not allow a republican president to seat a justice this close to an election.

It does rather shock me that they have not used the go-to and rather obvious excuse though - that a Biden appointee would be to radical to even risk the chance he wins the election. Seems as though that would play into the general narrative they want to paint but I do not really hear it from anyone yet.

A stronger position in what way? Because the Democrats would have liked them better and been friends? You talk as though you think there's anything the Senate Republicans could have done or could ever do which would somehow prevent the Democrats from employing an unhinged, scorched-earth policy to get their way.

It's long past time that Republicans and conservatives lose the notion that if we just play nice and be conciliatory, the Democrats will join us in doing the same, and if we dare to be so rude as to actually try to win in politics, then the reactions of the Democrats are OUR fault.

 

[Papageorgio]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

 

[Papageorgio]

you're not paying attention. I’m not talking about Trump nominating somebody now. I’ve said over and over that he has that right. The game was what happened to Garland and the new precedent that Reps tried to set about nominating justices during an election year.... and then completely flip flopping on it during the next term. Obama should have gotten Garland and Trump should get this pick. We all know this

Yeah, I am trying to ignore your ignorance for the most part.

1. Garland is in the past...let it go.

2. What 'precedence' regarding nominating Judges in an election year' did the GOP set?

At least 14 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed during election years

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...

www.vox.com

3. Yes, Garland should have gotten his hearings. Sadly, he didn't. Welcome to POLITICS.

And 'for the record, we both know if GBG would have bailed in September 2016 Barry and the Democrats would have broken their collective asses trying to fill the vacancy. Barry even said if one came available that he year he would have.

Ho hum let it go doesn’t fly when you’re talking about robbing a president of his constitutional right to Appoint a Supreme Court justice. The reasoning they used and the precedent they set was that a judge should not be appointed in an election year. The people should decide through their vote. Since that was a lie. The precedent now set is if the opposition party is in power they should block a presidents SCOTUS pick. What would stop them from blocking it for 2 years next time?

Yep, the precedent is set, just like the Democrats removing the filibuster rule for their advantage. The Democrats and Republicans don’t seem to realize the consequences of screwing with the rules.

 

[Slade3200]

you're not paying attention. I’m not talking about Trump nominating somebody now. I’ve said over and over that he has that right. The game was what happened to Garland and the new precedent that Reps tried to set about nominating justices during an election year.... and then completely flip flopping on it during the next term. Obama should have gotten Garland and Trump should get this pick. We all know this

Yeah, I am trying to ignore your ignorance for the most part.

1. Garland is in the past...let it go.

2. What 'precedence' regarding nominating Judges in an election year' did the GOP set?

At least 14 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed during election years

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...

www.vox.com

3. Yes, Garland should have gotten his hearings. Sadly, he didn't. Welcome to POLITICS.

And 'for the record, we both know if GBG would have bailed in September 2016 Barry and the Democrats would have broken their collective asses trying to fill the vacancy. Barry even said if one came available that he year he would have.

Ho hum let it go doesn’t fly when you’re talking about robbing a president of his constitutional right to Appoint a Supreme Court justice. The reasoning they used and the precedent they set was that a judge should not be appointed in an election year. The people should decide through their vote. Since that was a lie. The precedent now set is if the opposition party is in power they should block a presidents SCOTUS pick. What would stop them from blocking it for 2 years next time?

What would stop Democrats from doing the same in the future. What Feinstein and the Democrats did to Kavanaugh was f*ing despicable - immoral, unethical, down-right POS low! So don't talk to me about piss-poor behavior by the GOP. What they did to him and said about him in front of his wife and kids was damn-near unforgiveable. NO EXCUSE.

Like him or not, Lindsey Graham was spot-on on his rebuke of the Democrats.

What are you in grade school? Do you think bad behavior from one side justifies it from the other?! Grow up. Have some
Back bone. Just an ounce of character and integrity

 

[Slade3200]

It’s not that complicated. Each president has the right to nominate a Justice. They should act like grown ups.

Did the Democrats act like 'grown-ups' during the Kavanaugh hearings?

There was a woman accuser that seemed credible and they invited her to testify. I don’t see a problem with that. Many of them completely overstepped the boundaries and made presumptive attacks Towards Kav that I believe were unjustified and political.

 

[Slade3200]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

 

[Slade3200]

you're not paying attention. I’m not talking about Trump nominating somebody now. I’ve said over and over that he has that right. The game was what happened to Garland and the new precedent that Reps tried to set about nominating justices during an election year.... and then completely flip flopping on it during the next term. Obama should have gotten Garland and Trump should get this pick. We all know this

Yeah, I am trying to ignore your ignorance for the most part.

1. Garland is in the past...let it go.

2. What 'precedence' regarding nominating Judges in an election year' did the GOP set?

At least 14 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed during election years

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...

www.vox.com

3. Yes, Garland should have gotten his hearings. Sadly, he didn't. Welcome to POLITICS.

And 'for the record, we both know if GBG would have bailed in September 2016 Barry and the Democrats would have broken their collective asses trying to fill the vacancy. Barry even said if one came available that he year he would have.

Ho hum let it go doesn’t fly when you’re talking about robbing a president of his constitutional right to Appoint a Supreme Court justice. The reasoning they used and the precedent they set was that a judge should not be appointed in an election year. The people should decide through their vote. Since that was a lie. The precedent now set is if the opposition party is in power they should block a presidents SCOTUS pick. What would stop them from blocking it for 2 years next time?

Yep, the precedent is set, just like the Democrats removing the filibuster rule for their advantage. The Democrats and Republicans don’t seem to realize the consequences of screwing with the rules.

I agree woth you there. The whole thing is a big clusterfuck

 

[Papageorgio]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

There was no obstruction, the Dems had no help in the Senate to push forward. The Senate was with in their rights. Nothing in the Constitution said it the had to put Garland to a vote. I dislike what they did, but there was nothing that required a vote. Reid did similar with bills from the House, but nothing required Reid present any of the Hose bills and it bit the Democrats under Obama and Garland and with this session of Congress. We don’t even have gridlock, we have egos screwing America over.

Don’t worry the Dems will escalate this when they do worse in their seeking revenge. My questions is where do the voters draw the line?

 

[Slade3200]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

There was no obstruction, the Dems had no help in the Senate to push forward. The Senate was with in their rights. Nothing in the Constitution said it the had to put Garland to a vote. I dislike what they did, but there was nothing that required a vote. Reid did similar with bills from the House, but nothing required Reid present any of the Hose bills and it bit the Democrats under Obama and Garland and with this session of Congress. We don’t even have gridlock, we have egos screwing America over.

Don’t worry the Dems will escalate this when they do worse in their seeking revenge. My questions is where do the voters draw the line?

The constitution says it’s their duty to advise and consent. They didn’t do that. If Garland wasn’t a worthy candidate then they could have voted him down and given Obama the opportunity to appoint somebody else. That’s obviously how the system was designed. They gamed the system by taking no action and running the clock out. They hyperpoliticized the SCOTUS and now it’s snowballing. It’s a real shame

 

[Slade3200]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

There was no obstruction, the Dems had no help in the Senate to push forward. The Senate was with in their rights. Nothing in the Constitution said it the had to put Garland to a vote. I dislike what they did, but there was nothing that required a vote. Reid did similar with bills from the House, but nothing required Reid present any of the Hose bills and it bit the Democrats under Obama and Garland and with this session of Congress. We don’t even have gridlock, we have egos screwing America over.

Don’t worry the Dems will escalate this when they do worse in their seeking revenge. My questions is where do the voters draw the line?

It will take a leader with character and integrity to stop the snowball of tit for tat that’s happening. Trump doesn’t have that, he is gas on the fire making it worse. My hope is that Biden tries to address it and mend some of the divide

 

[Billiejeens]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

There was no obstruction, the Dems had no help in the Senate to push forward. The Senate was with in their rights. Nothing in the Constitution said it the had to put Garland to a vote. I dislike what they did, but there was nothing that required a vote. Reid did similar with bills from the House, but nothing required Reid present any of the Hose bills and it bit the Democrats under Obama and Garland and with this session of Congress. We don’t even have gridlock, we have egos screwing America over.

Don’t worry the Dems will escalate this when they do worse in their seeking revenge. My questions is where do the voters draw the line?

The constitution says it’s their duty to advise and consent. They didn’t do that. If Garland wasn’t a worthy candidate then they could have voted him down and given Obama the opportunity to appoint somebody else. That’s obviously how the system was designed. They gamed the system by taking no action and running the clock out. They hyperpoliticized the SCOTUS and now it’s snowballing. It’s a real shame

You have definitely mischaracterized the situation.

 

[Slade3200]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

There was no obstruction, the Dems had no help in the Senate to push forward. The Senate was with in their rights. Nothing in the Constitution said it the had to put Garland to a vote. I dislike what they did, but there was nothing that required a vote. Reid did similar with bills from the House, but nothing required Reid present any of the Hose bills and it bit the Democrats under Obama and Garland and with this session of Congress. We don’t even have gridlock, we have egos screwing America over.

Don’t worry the Dems will escalate this when they do worse in their seeking revenge. My questions is where do the voters draw the line?

The constitution says it’s their duty to advise and consent. They didn’t do that. If Garland wasn’t a worthy candidate then they could have voted him down and given Obama the opportunity to appoint somebody else. That’s obviously how the system was designed. They gamed the system by taking no action and running the clock out. They hyperpoliticized the SCOTUS and now it’s snowballing. It’s a real shame

You have definitely mischaracterized the situation.

Explain how. I’ll gladly show you where you’re wrong

 

[Cecilie1200]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

There was no obstruction, the Dems had no help in the Senate to push forward. The Senate was with in their rights. Nothing in the Constitution said it the had to put Garland to a vote. I dislike what they did, but there was nothing that required a vote. Reid did similar with bills from the House, but nothing required Reid present any of the Hose bills and it bit the Democrats under Obama and Garland and with this session of Congress. We don’t even have gridlock, we have egos screwing America over.

Don’t worry the Dems will escalate this when they do worse in their seeking revenge. My questions is where do the voters draw the line?

Just to clarify all this blather and white noise the left has always spewed about Merrick Garland and his "right" to a hearing and FORMER President Obama's "right" to have his nominee confirmed, and whatever-the-fuck-else they think they were entitled to:

There have been 15 nominations to the Supreme Court which were left hanging and simply allowed to lapse when the session of Congress ended.

John Crittenden was nominated by John Quincy Adams in 1828. The Senate declined to vote on him, and the seat was eventually filled by Andrew Jackson's nomination of John McLean.

Roger Taney was nominated by Andrew Jackson in 1835, and the Senate declined to vote on him. President Jackson nominated him again in December of that year, when the composition of the Senate had changed, and Taney was confirmed.

Reuben Walworth was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him. Tyler eventually gave up and withdrew the nomination.

Edward King was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

John Tyler kept re-nominating Walworth and King, and the Senate just kept basically ignoring him entirely.

John Read was nominated by John Tyler in 1845, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

I could go on, and will if anyone insists, but let's hear no more about how the Senate is "obligated" to give hearings and votes to every nominee that every President puts forth. Pretty clearly, the Senate has always been seen to have the option of providing "advice and consent" by simply ignoring nominations they don't like. The example of President John Tyler tells us that this sort of interaction between a President and a Senate which are at odds with each other certainly has precedent.

 

[kiwiman127]

I bet every Trump cultist involved in this discussion was all for no Garland nomination hearings.
Because you dorks are nothing but Trump hand-puppets, your opinions are 100% Trump’s opinions every single time.
Are there any Little Trumpsters on this board that are even a little bit able to think pragmatically? Answer; absolutely not.

 

[Billiejeens]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

There was no obstruction, the Dems had no help in the Senate to push forward. The Senate was with in their rights. Nothing in the Constitution said it the had to put Garland to a vote. I dislike what they did, but there was nothing that required a vote. Reid did similar with bills from the House, but nothing required Reid present any of the Hose bills and it bit the Democrats under Obama and Garland and with this session of Congress. We don’t even have gridlock, we have egos screwing America over.

Don’t worry the Dems will escalate this when they do worse in their seeking revenge. My questions is where do the voters draw the line?

Just to clarify all this blather and white noise the left has always spewed about Merrick Garland and his "right" to a hearing and FORMER President Obama's "right" to have his nominee confirmed, and whatever-the-fuck-else they think they were entitled to:

There have been 15 nominations to the Supreme Court which were left hanging and simply allowed to lapse when the session of Congress ended.

John Crittenden was nominated by John Quincy Adams in 1828. The Senate declined to vote on him, and the seat was eventually filled by Andrew Jackson's nomination of John McLean.

Roger Taney was nominated by Andrew Jackson in 1835, and the Senate declined to vote on him. President Jackson nominated him again in December of that year, when the composition of the Senate had changed, and Taney was confirmed.

Reuben Walworth was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him. Tyler eventually gave up and withdrew the nomination.

Edward King was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

John Tyler kept re-nominating Walworth and King, and the Senate just kept basically ignoring him entirely.

John Read was nominated by John Tyler in 1845, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

I could go on, and will if anyone insists, but let's hear no more about how the Senate is "obligated" to give hearings and votes to every nominee that every President puts forth. Pretty clearly, the Senate has always been seen to have the option of providing "advice and consent" by simply ignoring nominations they don't like. The example of President John Tyler tells us that this sort of interaction between a President and a Senate which are at odds with each other certainly has precedent.

You are explaing history to people who don't do compare and contrast.

There is no historical reference to them

What they want is right
What they don't want is just simply wrong.

Nothing else matters

Historical reference - that's just whataboutism

 

[Papageorgio]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

There was no obstruction, the Dems had no help in the Senate to push forward. The Senate was with in their rights. Nothing in the Constitution said it the had to put Garland to a vote. I dislike what they did, but there was nothing that required a vote. Reid did similar with bills from the House, but nothing required Reid present any of the Hose bills and it bit the Democrats under Obama and Garland and with this session of Congress. We don’t even have gridlock, we have egos screwing America over.

Don’t worry the Dems will escalate this when they do worse in their seeking revenge. My questions is where do the voters draw the line?

It will take a leader with character and integrity to stop the snowball of tit for tat that’s happening. Trump doesn’t have that, he is gas on the fire making it worse. My hope is that Biden tries to address it and mend some of the divide

I don’t see either as an answer, nor do I see either VP as a leader. We are in trouble as a country, the extremes of the parties are running us into the ground. I can’t imagine voting for either party.

 

[Papageorgio]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

There was no obstruction, the Dems had no help in the Senate to push forward. The Senate was with in their rights. Nothing in the Constitution said it the had to put Garland to a vote. I dislike what they did, but there was nothing that required a vote. Reid did similar with bills from the House, but nothing required Reid present any of the Hose bills and it bit the Democrats under Obama and Garland and with this session of Congress. We don’t even have gridlock, we have egos screwing America over.

Don’t worry the Dems will escalate this when they do worse in their seeking revenge. My questions is where do the voters draw the line?

Just to clarify all this blather and white noise the left has always spewed about Merrick Garland and his "right" to a hearing and FORMER President Obama's "right" to have his nominee confirmed, and whatever-the-fuck-else they think they were entitled to:

There have been 15 nominations to the Supreme Court which were left hanging and simply allowed to lapse when the session of Congress ended.

John Crittenden was nominated by John Quincy Adams in 1828. The Senate declined to vote on him, and the seat was eventually filled by Andrew Jackson's nomination of John McLean.

Roger Taney was nominated by Andrew Jackson in 1835, and the Senate declined to vote on him. President Jackson nominated him again in December of that year, when the composition of the Senate had changed, and Taney was confirmed.

Reuben Walworth was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him. Tyler eventually gave up and withdrew the nomination.

Edward King was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

John Tyler kept re-nominating Walworth and King, and the Senate just kept basically ignoring him entirely.

John Read was nominated by John Tyler in 1845, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

I could go on, and will if anyone insists, but let's hear no more about how the Senate is "obligated" to give hearings and votes to every nominee that every President puts forth. Pretty clearly, the Senate has always been seen to have the option of providing "advice and consent" by simply ignoring nominations they don't like. The example of President John Tyler tells us that this sort of interaction between a President and a Senate which are at odds with each other certainly has precedent.

I don’t believe they were obligated however by voting him down it would have looked better.

My thought is, if you have the advantage and the Republicans currently do, they need to seize it, and that goes for either party.